Ashton Carter as likely new SECDEF

I am going to be honest and say that I am concerned about this selection.

First, it seemed as though many solid candidates withdrew their names from consideration. Given, I am only catching things in bits and pieces, but I think I have read that 2 or 3 individuals formally withdrew themselves. If this inaccurate, than I apologize for my misinformation. If it is true, then I am concerned about what the future may hold. What did they know or where they just legitimately not up to the task at hand?

In regards to Mr. Carter, my major concern is that he lacks service. I see this as being a bit of a challenge to overcome despite his experience. I also read an analyst state that he had to be selected and confirmed before the new congress is sat. He was not specific on whether it would just be bipartisan politics that could block him or if there was some legitimate political line that may hold him up.

I am concerned, but I am hopeful. Maybe he will be the one that can genuinely help us work the budget and keep us off of the chopping block in the light of all the other government programs being funded that seem to be much more politically charged than institutionalized.

Seems this choice is more of a "Well, darn it, somebody's got to sit in that chair" then a thoughtful, considered, educated, experienced choice.

I wish him well as I can find nothing in his background that speaks negativity.. as a candidate..
On the other hand, I can find only minimal information that points to him being an obvious and successful choice.

I am not sure how I feel about this. Was he selected to be a "Yes Man" or does he have the chops to do this job right?

According to what I have seen on him, he has no service background either. Anyone know anything different?

I wish him the best of luck and hope he is up to the task however!

I'm going to have to say I am reluctant to support a nominee for the Secretary of Defense position who has not served in the armed forces. This is not a criticism of Ashton Carter's professionalism or his abilities to serve as a senior level political appointment. It is; however, a concern in his nomination.
I don't claim speak for everyone on RallyPoint, but I believe it's general consensus that anyone selected to lead the most lethal organization in the world should have some level of "hands-on" qualifications!
I recognize that Ash Carter's nomination is no different than past nominees who didn't serve in the military: Dick Cheney (in the George H.W. Bush administration) and William Cohen (in the William Clinton administration), just to name a couple. In fact, nearly 30% of our former defense secretaries never served.
I believe it's time for a change in this process! My position: any SECDEF nominee must have military experience; any exceptions to this must be justified.
Am I wong or right?

When I heard the news about now former SecDef Chuck Hagel resigning, Ash Carter was the first one that came to mind as his replacement. It is my understanding that the reasoning behind his original resignation as DepSecDef was that he felt he, in that capacity, could do very little to affect change because of the conditions set by the administration. While this is counter to what a soldier would do in a similar situation where they felt that the leadership was not giving them the latitude to make the changes that they desire, these officials have the choice to step down and soldiers don't. On a personal note, he was very pleasant to meet with as he visited myself and family members, and other wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. He did this on a saturday, his day off, which I think is a pretty powerful testament to how he feels about the troops.

It kind of bothers me that he making the "sex scandle" face in that picture.

I think anyone he is willing to pick is the wrong person. I am sick of PC in combat. War should be simple if we have to go then go hard. Go in kick out their teeth and get out. We need to stop trying to make the world love us.